i am asking the planning commission and the staff what input and what are you going to get -- solicit from the public. paom that do elaborate data models often forget who they're supposed to serve. the data models are supposed to serve the general public. and it's very normal for the planning departments to do ever more complicated tasks and the people who have to use those reports are not factored in. we have a -- in the public has a range of skills, some people are older and some people have age 20, a lot of data experience because they are trained in it. so how are the public members supposed to use the data that is being provided.

one of the things that i would say that was a couple pages that flashed through on the screen is a 15-minute walk in san francisco is very different if it's up a [inaudible] or has a barricade in it like for the bay bridge. and i found issues like that which are real to the people who live here to be not a person paying any attention to them at the planning department level because they use a radius map and a radius map is a radius map. 15 minutes walking on a flat ground is very different from walking up cliff. and we have cliffs in the city. we have mountains in this city. that is one of the things just a small example. but how are the planning department staff to provide input to the ?ubl what are you

going to do? i look at this description of item number 11. and i really don't see anything other than professional planners on there. so, the twos that are developed and access by the pim are used by regular people. if the only people they are serving are developers and they're attorneys and they're architects, you're not serving the public and i wish the planning commission to think through that. and really give impact back to staff about how they should conduct themselves, get real input. thank you very much. >> all right. thank you. >> i'll keep it short. real input does not mean quantity of hearings. i want people to really

internalize real input doesn't even necessarily mean lots of community meetings. because who can go and spend six hours in a community meeting is not always equitable. real input could be surveys, real input could be outreach in the community, could be door-to-door knocking or something that would actually get you a cross section of society that is not the people who are obsessed with planning. the people who are obsessed with planning, such as myself r not average and should be taken into account all the time. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner rich ars? >> the question i have on public access, is this an open data set that they can play around and do reports on things or is it a closed one? >> so, san francisco is at the

forefront of the open data movement and all of our data that we provide, whether it's pipeline data or other things, other planning data sets are up loaded to data s.f. and made available to the public who haven't the technical expertise to dive into these data sources and that is a very small number of people. that is people who know how to due date to analytics and a.i.g. and this is hoping to serve everybody else and be able to provide richer interfaces to be able to access information to be able to query the pipeline, understanding the housing inventory and understanding zoning and everything with interfaces that work for normal people and work on mobile devices and on interfaces. we'll always continue to publish our paper reports and the static documents that we always have and are commited to doing that. we're just trying to expand the range of services we can

provide to the public and meet the expectations of today. we live in a mobile data world where everyone expects, you know, fairly instant gratification on answers to their questions and we can provide that, we just need to invest a little bit more in our back of house capacity and we can meet those expectations. >> sure. one of the application i see here that would save us an enormous amount of time and went over from neighbors that filed d.r.s and things is i bought my little cottage in 1950 and the little cottage next door. i never realized i could build a building that way. if someone could see a massing diagram on both sides in the back of their project, that would be amazing when they buy a property. we'd probably eliminate a lot of the d.r.s. >> one of the capacitis that we're working with ezry on meshes this all together and it includes being able to -- yeah. thank you for that -- being able to visualize zoning envelopes. we can plug in our zoning

parameters from a very complex planning code and have it visualize what it looks like and not just what it looks like, but spit out data on how many square feet is it and all that sort of thing. and this can all be meshed with our pipeline data and the whole thing. >> you came before us in october 2017 and you had the zone capacity and i was in big bubbles. this is a lot of housing. this is a little housing as a little dot. i'd love to see the zone capacity with current buildings in a certain color and the zoning that can be there. and another color. that would be amazing. and then secondly, we're going to be hearing about sb-50 and all that and we had an impact analysis done on sba-27 but it was a map that showed the city in red, that it was covered by everything. i think really understanding what we have now and the increase in height, what would it look like? again with two colors. i know other jurisdictions in the state did analysis that

looked like that. i don't think we had the [inaudible] to do it and maybe we can apply it this year. >> some of these tools are still in development and are in beta testing and we're working to get there and we can only go so fast as the software is developed. i would say that whole exercise that you described of the whole growth capacity assessment that i worked with scott for a year and a half on. it took us a year and a half to compile it all to compile al static 2-d map for you and the questions come out, what is the capacity of this subarea and then it takes another two months to get through this. >> one last one. ms. hester raised a good point about topography. a 15-minute walk from church to castro via 21st street is probably a lot different and more difficult than a plat area. even though the measurement is the same in terms of feet. how do you take into consideration these kinds of things? >> some of this new -- these

new software platforms also enable production and performance, you know, performance information and indicators. whether it's walking distances or solar radiation or, you know, a lot of these things that can be programmed into it and what we're limited on now is sort of a 2d map of a [inaudible] and that is the sophistication that we have but these two tools enable us to take things into consideration. >> thank you. >> i just wanted to first thanks, josh brought this to me a few months ago and took me a while to get my hands around it, what it actually was. >> it's -- a couple of things that struck me about why this was important. one, we still do an amazing amount of hand work on our data. as sophisticated as the reports are, it takes a huge amount of hand work still that seems so 20th century.

but we need to move ahead. the thing that i really like about this. two things. one is the fact that it lets the data sets that we have speak to each other in ways that we can't do today. as he with pointing out, these data sets that we have now are independent of each other and it is very hard to connect them. this actually helps us to do that. and secondly it makes the data to prove josh's earlier point much more available to people who don't have any expertise in doing this stuff. right? that is a huge win from where we are today. so much of the data so obtuse and really requires a lot of expertise and just how you manipulate data. this will make it a lot more access tonight the public and a lot more people. it will take us time to get there. but this is a very important first step in getting there. >> thank you. commissioner melgar? >> thank you. i'm so into this. [laughter] i'm tingling with excitement. because, you know, i've been in and around government for my

entire career and it never ceases to amaze me how many departments in the city are so low tech. we, like, you know they require things, submitted in triplicate with a blue signature and all sorts of things that are just an impediment to efficiency. but i also think that this activity to the data will lead through policy innovation. i firmly believe that. when you have the knowledge controlled by just a few, just a few mind whoses can think about stuff while if we have full transparent open data that can be manipulated, played with, thought about by folks in the public, we will get better ideas. we'll get more participation and more democracy. so, i am really grateful that you are doing this and i hope that other departments follow and also use the data because i can see, you know, oewd, housing, all sorts of other

people being able to use this data to make good policy decisions. so, i'm into this. thank you so much. >> thank you, commissioner fong? >> thank you. i'm into this as well. and reminds me of the video game sim city. i don't know if you ever played that before. partially why i enjoy sitting here on thursdays. i think it is great. as commissioner melgar says, sometimes it is reactive to things and this is a great opportunity for us to be proactive to things including resiliency in case of emergency. congratulations. >> commissioner johnson? >> i just want to echo what was said, fun fact. did you know some city was inspired by rebuilding of oakland after the fire? so it has a bay area context. and, you know, i just want to echo that i was so excited to see this and i think some of the public commenters share that i think the greatest hope of all of these efforts is that the public can really engage with it and come a new

relationship with the city and also when we're having community conversations about the present and the future of our city we'll be able to used shared data set and shared understanding of both the topography and everything that our city is needing to be able to plan going forward. so, thank you so much. >> seeing nothing further, we can move on to item 12. 2016-011567cua. this is a conal use authorization. after being pulled off con sent and closing public comment and motion to continue indefinitely failed -- excuse me -- you continued this matter to november 8, 2018 by a vote of 5-1. commission kerr richards, you were absent and then on november 8, you continued it to today. so commissioner richards. >> we'll ask him when he comes back. >> ok.

>> thank you. we'll confirm, jonah, that he watched it. >> good afternoon again. ashley lindsay, planning department staff. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization to install a new at&t mobility macro wireless telecommunication facility at 2990 24th street. the project includes installation of two new fiber enclosures, 24 radio you nits and one g.p.s. antenna on the rooftop. ancillary equipment will be located at ground level and all equipment will be screened and painted to match the existing building. the project site is located within the n.c.t. zoning district at the northeast corner of harrison street and 24th street. the three-story building was constructed in 1989 and is within the special use district.

the present use of the building is residential with ground floor commercial. the wireless siding goidslines identify different building districts and uses for the sighing of wireless communication facilities. based on the zoning and land use, the proposed wireless facility is a location preference by a site, mixed use building and high density district making it a desired location. today the planning department has received two voice mails in protest of the project. their concerns were the inappropriateness of it cited in a relationial district and expressed that the community should have been included in the design process for the project. also today-to-date, the department has received seven e-mails in support of the proposal in which members of the public express supports for the wireless installation and a desire for more reliable self-service. as jonah so kindly reminded us on september 13, 2018, the commission heard and theder writ material and oral testimony presented at the

public hearing. at the hearing, community members spoke in protest of the promise and shared concerns related to the bulk, height and number of antennas proposed by the promise. the commission voted to continue item 2016-015675cua to a date of november 8, 2018 and requested that the project sponsor and community further discuss the project scope in hopes of a resolution. on october 29, 2018, the project sponsor held a community meeting to discuss design options but no resolution was made. and on november 8, 2018, the commission voted to continue the item the a date of december 20, 2018 to allow further discussion between the project sponsor and community. a second community meeting was held on december 4, 2018 and as a result of these past meetings, the project sponsor has provided five design alternatives. overhead, please. first i would like to call attention to the original design which is labeled d1.

it consists of antenna set back on the rooftop and screen behind r.f.p. boxes. this is the original proposal on which planning recommended. it is a preferred design as the visual impact of installation would be minimal from public vistas and streets this. proposal does not exceed the height of perts innocent [inaudible] on the roof >> tom: and compliance site with the guidelines. the first alternative design -- design two consists of six panel antennas mounted to the west-facing building wall. three additional antennas would be located on the rooftop of the building near the northeast corner. and the antennas on the facade would be unscreened and completely viz -- visible from public vistas and streets.

community members have expressed support of the facade mounted antenna design alternative. i would like to note that if the facade mounted alternative design were to be approved and built, at&t and other carriers would have the ability to add additional wireless antennas and equipment on the building so loening that the site modification is not a substantial dmaing physical dimensions. pursuant to the f.c.c.'s federal statute 6409. planning would be pree.sed from regulating various aspects of future site modification and would have limited discretionary authority. planning does not support this alternative design because it does not comply with section nine building, siding criteria and the wireless siting guidelines. the remaining designs are all rooftop proposal which is i'll go over briefly and can provide additional information upon request. design three shows unscreened antennas which are gently not preferred by planning but the

alternative addresses community concerns regarding bulk, planning does not recommend support of this design. design four shows antennas screened inside radums here on the top northeast corner. this alternative addresses community concerns regarding bulk and height, planning recommends support of this design. design five shows antennas located at the northeast and northwest corners of the rooftop and screened behind raised f.r.p. corners and planning recommends support of this design. and the last alternative shows antenna screens behind a triangle screen on the rooftop. planning recommends support of this design and this is also the most preferred by planning. to date, the project sponsor and the community have not come to resolution, but the commission has the discretion

to approve the original proposal. the alternative designs are a combination of the proposed alternative with conditions. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions and the sponsor team is also present to provide any additional details. thank you. >> ok. thank you, ms. lindsay. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. cami blackstone, at&t. i want to thank staff for working so closely with us to come up with all of these different designs and working with the community to get their input as well. i did want to mention one thing. when ms. lindsey was showing the first design that was presented, that was the first design presented to the commission. however, two years ago, we had a much larger design and it has been two years of reducing and reducing the e height, reducing the number of antennas and we

have nine antennas, which is 25% fewer than the 12 we started with. we reduced the height by five feet and it is now, like she said, level with all the other existing infrastructure that's up there. as you know, and i think the presentation before was somewhat helpful, just about everybody uses their phone right now for information, communication, work and entertainment and that use just continues to grow every single day. five years ago, we noticed a gap in coverage in capacity in the mission district and we began looking for a candidate to put a site there to serve the neighborhooding and the people who live there and work there. so, that's what we've done. and we're hoping that we can together. to some sort of resolution with a combination of the different variations we showed you. we met with the community several times. we were grateful for their participation in this. the design that they've chosen to me seems a little bit more in your face.

i with kind of hoping as a san franciscan to see something that was a ill will more obscureded and a little more stealth. but we're open to working with the commission on the design and continuing work with the community as long as we can get this moving forward. thank you. >> ok. thank you. we'll open this item up for public comment. if there is any. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm miguel bustos, chair of 24th and harris street neighbors. in september, you rightly so encouraged us to have a conversation, a dialogue with at&t which we did. over the past couple of months, not only have we had meetings with them, but have taken those meetings and gone back to the neighborhood and i personally have hosted several meetings at my house where we've been able to go through a lot of the designs. one thing that is a unique thing is the fact that we agreed. we finally got folks to agree

to a design that made sense for those of us that actually lived there. it may not be ideal for others, but getting people from 24th street to agree is a huge feat. i've been there 49 years so i don't know how i've never seen this happen before, but it happened. this is not a historical building. it's actually a simple building in nature. and the design that we chose we hope would actually give it some character. so we're not saying no to the project. what we're saying is that we got the community involved and we're grateful for that and we came to a decision for community preferred design, which was design two. so we would ask the following conditions of the approval of design two, which we allow for a total of six antennas, two facing the northwest, two facing the the southwest and two facing the west. which would really address the concerns they had about coverage. second would be public -- let's

notify the public and have a public hearing if they decide to modify if antennas. the other was once the and the nas were in place that they stay in place. that they're not moved, modified and the fourth is that no one should face any building or structure that was within 75 feet directly in front of the antennas. but we hope that you could approve what is community has asked for. again, this is in conversation and these designs were actually designs that actually were brought to us by the planning staff. [please stand by] [please stand by]

so i think people hashed it out. there was a lot of meetings that happened and that was the preferred plan and i hope you can support the community's plan and the community's position for the building and we're looking to have six antennas instead of nine. something that people talked about also. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? >> i apologize. i have some letters of support and petitions to submit. >> president hillis: thank you. >> vice president melgar: a question to staff, to our staff.

so we heard from folks that they chose from the alternatives that were presented to them but the one they chose is not one that the department supported. why did you support it to the community? i know about the mission, it's to get people to agree on something. it's a big deal. what happened there? >> to clarify, at the december 4 meeting, we were trying to provide context about the history of how sites developed over time and how the design changed and how we were trying to move away from that. it's an alternative, but not preferred by planning. it's not a preferred design, but it is something that could be done. >> vice president melgar: okay.

so i would vote to -- there was a process. there was a process and a lot of people, you know, i understand it's not the preferred design alternative, but if we went through all this work, you know, i don't see why we wouldn't take it up on it. >> president hillis: i agree. i do -- i support -- i like the way it looks better on the roof. i agree this was a bit of a process and one we asked for. so i think respecting that -- the only other issue of the number of antennas, there are six versus nine. if you can address that, what the difference -- this is typically beyond our scope. so i think i would support option 2 with the nine antennas, but can you talk to us about why -- >> i would like to invite up michael from at&t. he's our engineer. he can speak to why it's

necessary to have nine over six and also give you a little bit of idea of how it will actually look on the building because the way you have to angle the antennas. it's a little above my pay ground. so, michael, if you want to -- >> good afternoon. my name is michael kineelia. i work with at&t mobility and i'm an engineer. we started with 12 antennas, and went down to nine. the reason why we have to have the amount of antennas is to provide the frequencies that the f.t.c. has given us permission to transmit with. so each part on the antenna is

associated with a radio that's associated with a frequency that we can transmit from. and the reason why we have to have nine antennas, three per phase, is because of the number of ports to accommodate the frequencies that we're authorized to transmit. with overwhelm two antennas per grouping -- so we have three groupings of antennas with only two antennas, we won't be able to provide the amount of service that the f.c.c. allows us to use. so we'll have reduced capacity. we won't be able to transmit on the number of frequencies that the f.c.c. allows us to transmit on. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. and option 2, the nine antenna -- six on the face of the building and three were back on the roof.

commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i agree with the general interpretation of commissioner melgar about, if you present it to the community, it's an option. would you come up, your desire to have six versus nine. was that part of your discussions? i mean normally there's a technical set and solutions that have visual manifestations. normally we don't get into the technical side or haven't been able to challenge the technical side. can you prescribe how it was presented to you during the public meetings? >> sure. on december 4, we had a lengthy discussion with tat at&t and staff and it was a good meeting. good options came out. i sit on a commission and i love it when people come together and work together and that's always a good thing.

we left the meeting very, very satisfied that we had several options. so we took those options and went back to the community that couldn't attend that meeting and went through all -- every sipping l le -- single one of them. when it came to the number of antennas, we were brought up when we were told there were nine. so i know there was back room discussions that went from 12 to 9. when we came into it, there were 9. at first when we first met on december 4, we said, we want 3. at&t said, we can't do 3. we need more. that's when we brought it up to 6. that being said, our major concern is that the design that we thought that we worked hard to consensus would work and that we can get that. we laid out some conditions that we can work with that we hoped would be included in the

conditional use. if the commission decides to keep it at a certain number -- as long as we can work with at&t on where within design 2 they're placed, we would be okay with that. because we want to show good faith as we've been trying to do the whole time, but we would still want the other conditions that we outlined in the email to be a part of it, so we're all very clear about what to expect and that at&t would work with us to say, maybe we don't do three on the side. maybe we do it on the corner to be a marker. but we're trying to work with folks to make this happen and let's get it done and over with. it's been a long time. i appreciate your question, commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: it puts us in an awkward position. we know that at&t is planning for competition and capacity in

the future, even if they would get away with six right now, we know that given the competitive environment of telecommunications, each carrier tries to be a little bit ahead of the curve and have slightly better coverage than ones in that area. that says, nine is probably what we would be supporting. we don't have any technical data of why or why not. that is basically what's in front of us, but i certainly don't quite know if i support the alternative, given that i like community process and like to support that, i'm not quite sure of everything else, that comes with it, goes beyond my capacity sitting here. it's further negotiations of where they are and further conditions that i believe are a bit beyond what we can do because everything we do has to be written somewhere in the planning code and somewhere within the city charter otherwise we can't do it.

i'm sure the city attorney is listening very carefully. we can't even go much beyond the design alternative of nine antennas. >> president hillis: thanks. >> commissioners, i just wanted to, i guess, articulate a little bit more on where staff's position was in terms of supporting or not supporting the facade-facing one. i think the reason why we don't want the facade-mounted antennas along the building and along the cornice line. i think by establishing this as a site, it allows future carriers to add on to and add to that location. so while it's currently nine or six or however many, the thought

that other carriers can come along in the future is some of what we're atuned to and i will probably ask ms. lindsay to clarify and confirm that. it had been mentioned in her speech, but it's one of the main policy rationales of why we're not supportive of the facade-mounted ones. >> thank you. if this project were to be approved as a facade-mounted design and it's an stab -- established design, any carrier can come back to the city and long as they're not adding too much height or exceeding the width, they can add as many antennas as they want. if you see six or nine now, you may see 15 or 20. if we're not asking them to screen now, we cannot ask them

to screen antennas in the future. so it can evolve with time. >> commissioner koppel: i'm leaning towards supporting the nine antennas. going from 12 to nine was great mitigation from at&t. i'm personally going to stick with what we've been doing and lean towards a rooftop install that's screened. that's the way we've been doing it and the way we should keep doing it. i'm still open to -- i understand that the community may have different wants and i'm not going to impinge on telling them what to do, but i would be supportive of nine antennas with the originally proposed setup or eventually letting staff work with the community to figure that out. i'm kind of set on the nine antennas. >> commissioner fong: i, too, am supportive of staff's

recommendation of nine. there was a point where cell phone coverage was a luxury. and i think cellular coverage now is a necessity. i think it's part of -- as important as any infrastructure in the city as far as plumbing, electrical underground power, transit even. people are depending on this for work, business, connecting with kids, parents, aging parents. we're at a point where we have to lean on the experts and private companies to guide us and put as much equipment down to cover the city. for some reason, i'm in a resiliency, emergency preparedness mode, but it's going to come up and we're going to swear when our phones don't work. so maybe this helps in this area in an emergency. so i'm supportive. as far as design, going back, when intra structure is being

laid for sewer underground, public doesn't come in and input on where sewer pipes and fire hydrants are laid out. you have to rely to the technology at the moment and this is infrastructure with city and i'll stay with staff's recommendation of nine. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: a follow-up question to what you just said. if we approve any design today, does that mean then that because of the federal legislative structure, that any other carrier can come and add antennas? is that the facade design and also the screened-in design? >> yes. regardless of the design, as long as there's an established facility, any other carrier can attach their facility, given that they also go through our

planning process and lease negotiation with the property owner, but they have the opportunity to co- locate. they would be exempt from the conditional use authorization process and go to building permit directly. >> vice president melgar: i see. if we do the facade-mounted design, they would have to follow that facade-mounted design or can they do something else? >> as long as they attach the facility within 10 feet or -- no more than 10 feet above the roof, the top of the building, and does not exceed within 6 feet of the edge of the building, they can attach their antennas anywhere on the building within certain parameters. and if they're not screened now, we cannot require carriers to screen them in the future.

>> vice president melgar: i see. okay. with that, can i ask you, mr. rousseau, a question? thank you. we're in a little bit of a bind here because i don't think that we can -- as as condition of this approval have -- impose that they come back to us. i think that federal law preempts that. if we approve the facade design, that means that cricket or whoever can come and do more and there won't even be a process. so how do you feel about that? >> that could be said to any approval of any of the designs. someone can come in and add another 20, depending on what they want. it's not pertinent to design 2.

but that particular building will not be the tallest in two years. mission housing is building a senior housing that's, i think, five stories high, which would be more attractive for some people. but i guess the frustrating part is we were asked to go back to meet and to try to come to a resolution and we spent a lot of time and i think we also empowered people in the community to say, you know what, in this case, you're going to have a say, right? for the last several years, wireless companies come on in and got what they wanted and we actually went back and it's -- to do that was a huge feat and to get people to say, you know what, let's be realistic and

support it. but then to go back to square one now after all these months, i think -- it was just a waste of our time. >> vice president melgar: you're saying you are okay with a facade-mounted design, even if it can be amended later? >> we're still fine with that. and we'll be okay with the nine. we're giving in. we're meeting people more than halfway. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: you know, i have to say that i am really sympathetic with what was just shared. that i think the president did go through a process and decide on a design. there are larger policy implications, state and federal. and i wish that some of the implications had been discussed with the community and talking up through the design choices

that they made. and so i am in support of the nine towers or the nine antennas. i -- yeah. in this case, i also feel like i want to side with the community's decision because we did give them a choice. >> president hillis: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: it puts us in a very awkward situation, community negotiations aside, it seems that the planning department may have made a mistake putting something forward that we can't support. given the history that there will be applications that follow, that alternative is no alternative. so it's basically your problem that this commission feels forced to support the community given all the work that we have

done and i want to put that out here and suggest that the department doesn't use it as an alternative anymore. >> commissioner richards: if i may, it was a range of technical options. the facade-mounted antennas are not something that we prefer, they're an option. they're an option. given the state of the negotiations, we felt we needed to present all possible options. >> commissioner moore: however, there are overriding reasons why the city for the other reasons cannot support it and it needs to be framed as not being a viable alternative. i'm not arguing or making you wrong, but to get us out of that predicament, particularly because this commission sits here to foster community

support. it's the nature of where it is. >> vice president melgar: i would like to make a motion that we approve this project with nine new antennas with design 2, which was approved by the community. >> second. >> president hillis: option 2. >> the ones that staff proposed. >> clerk: a motion has been seconded to approve the matter with conditions specifically for nine antennas and the community design alternative number 2. >> can i pause and ask at&t -- i'm a little confused by all this. is that something that you can work with? >> we can work with it. when planning met with us on december 4, it was thrown out as

an alternative. we don't want to be limited to that picture. it won't be exactly there. they will need to move some of the antennas out from -- michael, you may want to speak. it will be two groupings on the facade and another in the rear. >> president hillis: in this option, it wasn't on a facade. it was the back. so i think we get that. >> okay. >> president hillis: that's fine. two on the facade and one in the back. >> good. [inaudible] >> so design 2 has the six antennas, flush-mounted against the facade like that.

and rear in the smokestack. that's design 2. >> president hillis: and that's the motion? >> vice president melgar: yes, that's the motion. [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. that places us on items 13 a-d for 2016-00490senx, cua, shd, and var. you will consider conditional use and shadow and request for variance.

>> clerk: you will consider large project authorize, conditional use determination and shadow determination and zoning administrator will request a variance for 1052-1060 folsom street and 190 190-194 russ street. >> good afternoon. department staff. the project before you for the proposed demolition of five existing buildings with 10,439 square feet of commercial use and 4,456 of residential units. the merger and the new mixed-use building containing 2,832 square

feet of ground floor, commercial retail use and 55,887 for 63 dwelling units consisting of three studios, 23 one-bedroom and 37 two-bedroom units. there is common open space and 3,572 ground floor garage with access through a single, new driveway on rush street for 16 residential automobile and 63 class 1 parking spaces. under the provisions for large project authorizations in a residential enclave district, the development is accepting requests for rear yard and dwelling unit exposure. since it's south of market, the sponsor is requesting a variance for rear yard and exposure by the zoning administrator today.

as stated, the project is in two zoning districts with 60% in the south of market district, which connects to the folsom street district and contains a pattern of neighborhood-serving and pedestrian-oriented ground floor, commercial uses, with dwelling units above. the remaining 40% of the project at the rear is located in the residential enclave zoning district, which contains crusters of low-scale, medium-density residential neighborhood on the narrow streets of the south of market area. vacant or underdeveloped parcels in this district are intended as opportunity sites for new housing. since the packet was published last thursday, the department has received 23 additional letters in support of and one in opposition to the project that are being provided to you today. also handed out to you today is

an amended exhibit a to the large project authorization draft motion that clarifies the replacement of existing rent-controlled unit. after analyzing all aspects of the project, department staffer finds that the project is on balance consistent with the policies and objectives of the general plan and east soma area plan because it's located in zoning districts that principally permit ground fleer commercial uses as well as commercial uses. it's an appropriate in-fill development that will replace four units in kind and add 59 new dwelling units, including 15 permanently affordable dwelling units. the new development is designed with an appropriate massing scale and architectural style for the subject block and broader above in the south of

market. it will also include streetscape environments and contribute to pedestrian-friendly. we will also comply with first source hiring program and pay the development impact fees. based upon these findings and those described in the draft motions as amended, the department staff recommends approval of both the large project and conditional use authorizations with conditions and shadow impact determination. project sponsor is present and has prepared a presentation, but this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor? >> there will be three of us speaking today. the first one will be the project sponsor, and then i will speak on the shadow and then lastly the architect will talk

about the design. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is paul and i'm a born and raised san franciscan. i'm speaking to you today on behalf of the owner and project sponsor and would i like to thank everybody in advance that will speak today, especially those in support of the project. we recognize that the park across the street is a treasured resource in the soma district. not only to the general public, but for the filipino cultural heritage community and the lgbtq cultural district. we understand the importance of protecting the park. the first concern of some neighborhood groups pertain to ellis act, which has nothing to do with this project. we have never previously filed an ellis act and as soon as we

realized it was a mistake, the filings were abandoned and no evictions of any tenants ever occurred. no evictions ever occurred. in a good faith effort and thanks to the guidance of our late mayor lee, these five buildings were sold to the mayor's housing aquisition program. selling the properties will keep 19 units in the five buildings permanently affordable. we're doing our best to right a wrong. in cooperation with the planning department, the mayor's office of housing and tenderloin housing clinic, this project was redesigned to a 63-unit building within the same envelope, offering more housing to families, more rental stock to our city, aened above all, more below market rate housing units to the mayor's office of housing program.

by maximizing the density potential of the three lots on which the building will sit, we're doing our part to help mayor breed reach the goal of creating 5,000 units of housing each year. 25% or 15 units of this project will be allocated to the mayor's office of housing bmr program. in addition, 150,000 will be donated to continue the bathroom attendant security program when the current funding ends, helping to improve safety for its park users. there are four rent-controlled units on the site. and the tenants will be given relocation assistance and temporary, fully renovated housing until they can move into the new building. mandated, but also significant is the roughly $900,000 in impact fees, further contributing to the city's funding for soma open space development, improvement of affordable housing, transportation and

infrastructure projects. i hope the commission will see that we hope to build this project and others in the future and it will be a win-win for the city, as well as we hope to redeem our reputation in the community. we hope the commission will find this project good for the city of san francisco and all the ways indicated and request that it could possibly be approved. thank you for your time. i have 53 letters and 100 signed a petition that i would like to give to the commission. on the top, i wanted to explain, there's a letter from the housing tenderloin and tenant letters in support and commercial tenants in support of the project as well. if you have any questions, thank you.

>> members of the commission, i'm the attorney for the project sponsor. i will focus my presentation on shadow, since it's an important aspect of the project for you to consider. in 1989, your staff as well as the park and rec staff issued some implementation guidelines, which my recollection is that the planning commission held a public hearing on it. and one of the guidelines deals with parks that are over 2 acres that have shadowed. for those parks, there is an allowable 1% increase in shadow for the park in the future. this park is in that category. the new shadow that is cast as

you will hear, will not -- will be below the 1%. even with the cumulative in shadow by the project, it does not reach the 1% allowance. so next what i'd like to do is to -- you will hear a lot of presentations about how the parks, the project, is going to take over 30% that will have shadow cast on it forever. that is saying, this park, this project will cast no shadow in the park from october 18 to february 22. so today is a sunny day. there will be -- it's cold. sun is out.

there will not be one inch of shadow on that park during that period of time. we'll also hear from opposition that say that the project will deep live -- deprive children that use the park. the fact of the matter is, no shadow -- the shadow was not on february 23. the first day of no shadow is 15 minutes and it is minimal at the edge of the park. as we move throughout the summer, when we hit june 21, the longest day of the year, is when you have the longest shadow. because it's also the longest

day. and that day, you will see that the shadow starts to reach the park at 6:00. now that particular graphic is actually an earlier design, so it's slightly larger because the top floor is not set back. so you didn't have any setback on the 6th floor or 7th floor. because of the concern about the shadow, i talked to the project sponsor and said, let's look at what happened if we have a smaller building, because this is 63 units. that at the edge, at 6:30, is where the difference between a 65-foot building and a 55-foot building. so if you take one floor off and have a six-story building instead of seven, the difference

is minimal. the blue color is the six-story building. now there's a line, which is solid. that's the 40-foot-high building, which under prop k, does not have to come before you on shadow. at 6:30, the gray color is the existing. you will see that the 40-foot building starts to go into the area of where the basketball court is. by the time you get to 7:00, it started to cover part of the basketball court. by 7:15, it started to move down. and then this is where you see that a 65-foot building will